c_corgi

When an ideal pair volunteered to play they were told, on the basis of this system or ideology, that they would only be used as a last resort. That is why we are hung up on it. It might also be a contributing factor to the subsequent lack of volunteers. The majority opinion is that a system which creates such a ridiculous situation should not be used.

I don't think all these criteria are really a good idea. So far they seem to have had the effect of alienating one of the most deserving pairs (in terms of ability, established regular partnership and helpfulness of posting), while ensuring that they are ranked below any new candidate who decides to put there name forward. This might have the reverse of the desired effect: being assured priority over more deserving candidates might inhibit new people stepping forward. Sometimes it might be necessary to make a subjective judgement, but I would have thought these can often be resolved by discussion between the players, and if not, maybe publish the alternatives in the thread and see which get upvoted.

If South had said, before the alert: "Oops! I didn't see the 1 heart opening." would it still be UI to him?

I'm not sure that the 4C bid was related to the infraction (and is therefore SEWoGable). Presumably the infraction was concealing the implicit agreement that North was likely to show the wrong 2 suits, i.e. that clubs was a suit that North may have. In my experience players who believe their suit is worth introducing at the 4-level will assume that it is not one of the suits held by an opponent who has advertised an unspecified 2-suiter.

This is the point. If the pollee wouldn't have considered bidding in the same way if playing the methods of the partnership, he is not a valid peer and there is no point trying to construct LAs based on his decision. Since there are presumably going to be no peers available who would have opened 2NT showing 5-5 in the minors then the whole of L16B1b cannot be applicable. Fortunately there is L73 to fall back on.

You mean declarer told North that he didn't expect that dummy? That hardly seems damaging. Regarding the signalling issue, that can of worms has been opened elsewhere and with sufficient vitriol to not want to open it here.

From the bulletin writeup: ... The facts: The director was summoned at the end of the hand. West told South that 3NT denied three hearts or four spades. East said he may or may not hold four spades. South said he might have led a heart with the correct information. ...

But hadn't North received correct information (from East)?

Playing with the numbers can lead to some interesting results though, possibly changing the natural justice outcome if not the legal one. For instance: A player is on lead and has been given MI which makes his choice of lead clear. With the MI he will have three 50-50 decisions to take, of which he will need to get at least 2 right to beat the contract, so he has a 50% chance of success overall. He got only 1 right and the contract made. Case 1. Correcting the MI would have cleared up one of his three decisions so that he was 100% to get that one right. Without the MI he needs only to get at least one of 2 decisions right, so he had a 75% chance of defeating the contract. Does it matter what was the outcome of the decision that only existed because of the MI? Arguably if he got that one right anyway there was no damage. If he got that one wrong and exactly one other right, then arguably the without the MI the contract would be defeated 100% of the time given what happened at the table. But it is also arguable that you have to go back to the initial 75% chance from a legal perspective. Case 2. Correcting the MI would have resulted in a different, but still automatic lead. The result of this is that all the key decisions would be taken by partner and the outcome would be truly independent of the decisions at the table. Partners chances of getting it right can be assigned various values leading to a similar situation to that discussed in jallerton's thread. When applied to real hands, some of the arguments in case 1 would lead to complicated maths based on tenuous data. Should they be used anyway where possible?

Doesn't it [Lamford approach] get tangled up with L73 and lead to an error message?

Do you have any statistics to support the ease with which your partners revert to natural PH responses over 1D? :P

To beat the contract North (who has received no MI) must also defend differently. Presumably she must do so on the basis of South playing the 10 of diamonds rather than the 6. It seems unlikely to me that this would have the desired effect: even if it does pursuade North not to continue diamonds (far from clear IMO) that is not enough; South himself thought that it would induce a spade switch, which leads to the table result.

74C5 is an example of violation of procedure. The footnote makes it clear that when the player shows his cards deliberately without claiming we are out of violation of procedure territory. If the showing of cards was deliberately misleading, we are into 73D2 territory. This means one of two things: 1. The list in 73D2 does not explicitly include the situation described in the 74C5 footnote, but the footnote has been included to make it clear that 73D2 nevertheless applies. 2. The list in 73D2 does include the situation described in the 74C5 footnote and the footnote was included purely to assist navigation. In this case the deliberate showing of cards falls into one or more of the categories in the 73D2 list. It is not clear (IMO) whether it belongs under "gesture" or "purposeful deviation from correct procedure". The link between deliberate showing of cards without claiming and violation of procedure is absent in case 1 and seems tenuous in case 2. Edit: cross-posted with Trinidad's last post; there is significant overlap.

North's statement assumes the hesitation as fact but the OP does not say that it actually happened.

I think in the cue-bidding auction South has a clear raise. But having responded to Blackwood she must respect partner's signoff: the slow 5D may have helped wake her up to having misbid.

I can't see that the "1st high card revolving" bit is anything other than gibberish: any attempt to interpret it without clarification would be unduly optimistic. This leads to an argument that declarer should protect himself. If the card had correctly stated attitude is the primary signalling method, declarer could have reasoned "North cannot want to encourage clubs. Looking at my own hand, it is implausible that he wants to discourage a switch. Very likely he wants to encourage a spade switch. It is probably suit preference which means that Clubs are likely 3-3 and anyway, if I play on Diamonds the defence will not go wrong. Given that the card stated count as the primary signalling method, it is plausible that North would employ it, simply to help partner build up a picture of the hand. It is also possible that he would switch to some sort of suit preference/revolving (in which case he would probably play a card that asks for a spade), but as Trinidad has pointed out, declarer clarifying this is not practical if he expects to play on Diamonds anyway. In the first case above, declarer has a fairly clear reason to get it right. In the second case he has to guess what to do. The difference between these is surely damage.

I thought that the sentence was referring to the effect rather than the intent. But I probably have more familiarity with MickyB's manner of speech than could be expected of most forum users.

Even if the UI was partner announcing that he was just short of a natural 3-level overcall I dont think 5H would be suggested over pass. A unlateral action that requires partner's primary suit to match our 5-card suit rather than one of 2 4-card suits is not suggested. KJx spade and a balanced 14 count is not a promising start. Obviously the near 2NT overcall does not have to be that unsuitable (although I suspect that unsuitable would be the norm), but conversely hands which were an easy pass over 2S with nothing to think about could be extremely suitable.

Not remotely. Surely the hesitation suggests that partner is just short of a 2NT or 3-of-a-minor overcall. Neither of these are likely to result in sucess for the 5H bid. The 5H bid is just as barmy with the hesitation as without. Even finding a highly suitable dummy with 3 card support and no wasted values, an awful lot of luck was needed that it didnt turn a trivial plus into a minus score.

If we allow North to redouble for rescue here, surely we then have to rule fielded misbid as well.

Having a WJO in clubs interpreted by partner as a black 2-suiter doesn't sound like a very good outcome for the Ghestem pair. However the convention disruption that would result seems likely to be less than if 3C systemically showed a 2-suiter without clubs.

Certainly I think it would make for a better game if everybody knew their methods and played them to a good standard. But it would be a worse game if there was less diversity of methods and system development. Pet conventions will continue to be used and misused even if regulations prescribe harsh penalties: the only outcome will be an increase in non-bridge results. The cure seems both ineffective and worse than the malady.

Because experience is part of the learning process. Without the experience of playing the methods players are unlikely to be able to foresee all the implications. Even after considerable experience and discussion unforessen situations can easily arise.

I doubt that many people are demanding the right to use conventions badly. Using them badly is a step on the path towards (hopefully) using them well. It is not reasonable to expect a player who is keen to experience new and more effective methods to have studied and understood them completely before trying to use them.

It sounds like an event from which early disqualification would be a favourable outcome.